role-playing institutional academic integrity policy
Post on 17-Apr-2022
4 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
ORIGINAL ARTICLE Open Access
Role-playing institutional academicintegrity policy-making: using researchedperspectives to develop pedagogyErika Löfström
Correspondence:erika.lofstrom@helsinki.fiCentre for Research andDevelopment of Higher Education,Institute of Behavioural Sciences,University of Helsinki,Siltavuorenpenger 5 A, P.O.Box 9,Helsinki 00014, Finland
Abstract
This article describes research-based role-play on academic integrity. In therole-play, doctoral students negotiated the revision of an institutional integritypolicy representing different groups of academics and students. On the onehand, role-play as a teaching method and learning activity demonstrated thedifficulty of accommodating different perspectives; on the other, it showed thepower and necessity of negotiation in matters that involve value judgments.The role-play is described in detail along with its underlying pedagogical foundationsand its contextualisation in a doctoral summer school where it took place. The purposeof the article is to describe how academic integrity was approached through role-playand to discuss theoretical and pedagogical foundations of role-play in teachingacademic integrity. Although the article does not describe empirical researchon role-play as a teaching method, it demonstrates how role-play in teachingacademic integrity was developed based on prior research on the topic.
Keywords: Academic integrity, Responsible conduct in research, Role-play,Doctoral education, Research-based teaching, University pedagogy
IntroductionThe academic community around the world has shown increasing concern about uni-
versity graduates’ competence and integrity in the realm of research. Since the begin-
ning of the twenty-first century, researchers have been investigating students’
conceptions of integrity and related competences (e.g. Heitman et al., 2007; Bernardi et
al., 2011; Emmerton et al. 2014), and student misconduct (e.g. Tryon, 2000; Chapman
et al., 2004; Kremmer et al. 2007; Gynnild & Gotschalk, 2008; Ison, 2012). Meanwhile,
training initiatives have also been documented (e.g. Clarkeburn et al. 2002; Braun-
schweiger & Goodman, 2007). For instance, using dilemmas or cases (O’Leary &
Cotter, 2000; Nonis & Swift, 2001; McWilliams & Nahavandi, 2006) and involving
students in personal ethics action (Canary, 2007) have been shown to be successful
teaching strategies. However, there is less documentation about role-play in teaching
academic integrity. The aim of this article is 1) to describe a role-paly activity that is
designed based on empirical research on academics’ views of academic integrity, and
2) to reflect on role-play as a method for teaching academic integrity. The article does
not report on a specific study nor does it provide empirical support for the use of role-
International Journal for Educational Integrity
© The Author(s). 2016 Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 InternationalLicense (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium,provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, andindicate if changes were made.
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 DOI 10.1007/s40979-016-0011-0
play in teaching research ethics. However, none of the reviewed studies on role-play in
the teaching of research ethics or academic integrity describes a role-play that is based
on researched perspectives. The present description may be worthwhile in providing an
example of how empirical research on academic integrity may inform teaching by role-
play as a method.
The purpose of the role-play described here was to demonstrate the complexity of
academic integrity and the difficulties as well as the possibilities of fostering mutual
understanding and commitment to integrity. Academic integrity is here understood as
“logically coherent positions on ideal moral behavior, backed by actions that demon-
strate this position, practiced by individuals or institutions in an education, research or
scholarship setting” (Jordan, 2013, 252). In practice, the role-play encouraged the
participants to think of a position on academic integrity and its boundaries with a pre-
determined role as the point of departure.
The role-play took place as part of a week-long international doctoral summer
school. A stipulation of the summer school, which was devoted to research ethics and
integrity, was to foster a positive perspective: Academic integrity is not only about deal-
ing with misconduct, but also about doing the right thing and being proud of the fact
that one lives up to highest moral standards in one’s research work. The exercise
allowed participants to experience a negotiation situation with the aim of finding a
solution, namely designing an institutional academic integrity policy. In doing this, the
participants were to explore and agree on what constitutes responsible conduct in
research and breaches thereof.
Role-play as a teaching method in higher education
Role-play can be regarded as a teaching method/learning activity well aligned with no-
tions of learner-centredness. According to current understanding of teaching and learn-
ing in higher education, learner-centred methods facilitate students’ conceptual change
(Martin et al., 2000; Kember & Kwan, 2000). The concepts of role-play and simulation
are used to describe teaching and learning which mimic real or realistic situations.
While these two concepts are often used synonymously and are similar in practice in
terms of student activity and engagement, distinctions have nevertheless been made.
Role-play is primarily geared towards engaging students in recognising different per-
spectives. Simulations, in turn, help students to understand the dynamics of systems or
processes (Wright-Maley, 2015). Both role-play and simulations are designed to repre-
sent reality-based problems or situations, but role-play typically involves less complex
interactions among roles than do simulations (Wheeler, 2006). In the present study,
both concepts, simulation and role-paly, were considered, but the decision was made to
use the concept of role-play as the main focus was on learning through perspective-
taking. In this case the profiles, based on the results of a prior study, were more realis-
tic than the negotiation process, which in reality would be longer and more complex,
and would likely involve rounds of preparation work, hearing key stakeholders, and
commenting draft proposals. In the present activity, this process contained such
elements, but in a comprised form.
Role-play on academic integrity is hardly documented in the literature. In addition to
literature on role-play on integrity, role-play on research ethics was also reviewed. Both
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 2 of 14
domains may involve ethical and moral considerations, and therefore, it was thought
that broadening the literature review to include also role-play on research ethics may
add value to the review.
In teaching ethics-related content, role-play and simulations have been used, for
instance, in education (Druckman & Ebner, 2008; Shapira-Lishchinsky, 2013), nurs-
ing (Gropelli, 2010), business studies (Nelson et al. 2014), science and engineering
(Wareham et al. 2006; Nadolny et al., 2013), law and social work (Druckman &
Ebner, 2008), history and political science (McCarthy and Anderson 2000), and
international studies (Shaw, 2004). Wheeler (2006) presents an annotated review of
thirty role-plays and simulations on international issues. Some of these (e.g. Tolley
1998) include components of business or other ethics. Furthermore, the use of
games and cases may come close to role-play. Lloyd and Van de Poel (2008)
describe the application of a game, Delta Design, to teach engineering ethics in
design education. These authors conclude that the success of the game lies in con-
necting practical action with theoretical discussions. McWilliams and Nahavandi
(2006) describe the use of live cases researched and further developed by students
in the teaching of business ethics, and conclude that this method increases aware-
ness of the complexities of ethics, enhances application of concepts, increases emo-
tional engagement and students’ personal accountability, and encourages critical
thinking. Experimental designs comparing role-play and simulation with other
forms of teaching have concluded that the role-play or simulation enhances class-
room participation (McCarthy and Anderson 2000) and improves exam scores or
grades (McCarthy and Anderson 2000; Frederking, 2005). The focus in these stud-
ies has been on professional ethics or field-specific ethical issues.
There are a few studies on role-play and simulations in teaching research ethics,
research integrity or academic integrity, as well. Ralph Rosnow’s (1990) study of role-
play evaluates the cost and benefits of research. Together with a validation study by
Strohmetz and Skleder (1992), the work of these authors supports the notion that the
teaching method is useful in raising students’ awareness of the complexities of research
ethics. The role-play in these studies involved identifying and critiquing “unethical”
studies, taking the role of the author of such a study, and defending the study to a peer
review board consisting of fellow students.
Rachel Kraus (2008) describes the use of student-generated plays on the violation of
nine ethical norms in research. Based on overwhelmingly positive student feedback,
Kraus concluded that the exercise was helpful, engaging and creative. Another study
describes the application of the simulation method in compulsory undergraduate teach-
ing of the scientific process (Gunnels et al., 2015). Students reviewed realistic funding
applications and provided evaluations of the applications, ultimately assessing which
projects were to “receive funding”. The simulation was deemed successful because of
the nature of the ethical issues that the students raised, and consequently, they were
able to produce higher-quality research proposals themselves. Andrea M. Karkowski
(2010) describes a simulated Institutional Review Board (IRB) exercise in which
students reviewed mock research proposals in an effort to raise sensitivity to ethical
issues and prepare students for scientific work. Similarly, a mock IRB simulation with
students of sociology was found to generate in-depth discussion of ethical issues in
research in sociology (Sweet, 1999).
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 3 of 14
In what they call a simulation role-play, Druckman and Ebner (2008) have investi-
gated the effectiveness of various tasks within the exercise. The results of their study
showed that students who designed the scenarios benefitted the most in terms of con-
cept learning and retention. While teachers typically design the role-play or simulation
or use readily available products, the results of Druckman and Ebner (2008) encourage
teachers to consider assigning designer roles to students. However, in the context of
research ethics, in devising the role-plays students may tend to exaggerate ethical situ-
ations at the expense of dealing with content that is less obvious yet equally relevant
(e.g. a grey area of questionable practices) (Kraus, 2008). Facilitators may assign such
scenarios to students to make sure that a variety of ethical dilemmas are sufficiently
covered.
To conclude, less evidence is available specifically on role-play and simulations in
teaching research ethics and integrity, and academic integrity than on teaching profes-
sional or subject-specific ethics and ethical conduct.
Context
The role-play described here took place during the Fifth League of European Research
Universities (LERU) Doctoral Summer School at the University of Helsinki in 2014.
The theme of the summer school was “Doing the Right Things Right”—Research Integ-
rity in a Complex Society. Forty-three students, mainly from LERU institutions, partici-
pated in the summer school. The group was multidisciplinary with participants
representing social and behavioural sciences, the humanities, medical and life sciences,
natural sciences, law, business and engineering.
The learning objectives of the summer school were the following:
1. to make available to doctoral students state-of-the-art research ethics and integrity
through interaction with leading experts;
2. to raise awareness of and interest in ethical/integrity questions by creating a
stimulating cross-disciplinary environment; ‘
3. to promote the students’ appreciation for ethically sustainable solutions;
4. to support the students in developing tools for recognising, analysing and solving
ethical/integrity dilemmas; and
5. to promote the development of such qualities and competences that prepare
students to function as future ethical leaders in their research communities.
The role-play was intended to serve all objectives with 2 to 5 in particular, and it
made use of the outcomes of Objective 1. Summer school topics included the ethical
underpinnings of research, research integrity and academic integrity from a European
perspective, field-specific ethical issues, the researcher in society, interacting with the
media and ethical decision-making in research. Thirteen experts on research ethics and
integrity highlighted these topics from a variety of perspectives during the week, includ-
ing the perspectives of research financing and society, institutional leaders, journal edi-
tors, ethical review boards and researchers. Thus, during the week the participants
were being prepared for multi-perspective thinking, which was also intended to support
them in adopting specific perspectives in the role-play. The participants received a
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 4 of 14
certificate for taking part in the summer school; however, exercises, including the role-
play, were not graded.
The role-play: Negotiating an institutional integrity policy
The aim of the role-play was to integrate the various perspectives on academic integrity
presented during the summer school, and demonstrate their relevance for academia.
While the summer school addressed both research ethics and integrity, the role-play
was focused on responsible conduct in research, code of conduct and its breaches. The
outcome of the role-play was an academic integrity policy that would sufficiently
accommodate the views of different groups in academia so that all would feel that they
could make a commitment to the mutual integrity policy. To bring out multiple per-
spectives on and approaches to academic integrity, the students were divided into five
groups. Each group was to adopt a distinct perspective. The five perspectives emanated
from prior research indicating that academics tend to hold views along distinct lines
(Löfström et al., 2015). The profiles identified in that study formed the basis for the
group types and group descriptions provided the students. All groups received a de-
scription, and each group had 3 h in mid-course (i.e. end of the third course day) to de-
velop the perspective provided them. The groups were prompted to think of arguments
in support of their view. The 43 students were divided into five groups. The five groups
and their particular perspectives could be described as follows:
Group 1: Members of the institution’s Ethical Review Board: “The academic integrity
of our academic staff and students is substantially our responsibility, and we must
teach both the rules and the values of academic integrity. We make sure our students
learn these important things, as they are the future academics and researchers.”
Group 2: University Teachers: “We think of ourselves as gatekeepers of the professions
and of academia. If students do what we do, they will be fine and stay on the right
track. Our task as role models is crucial!”
Group 3: Doctoral Students: “Universities should foster future generations of
academics and citizens. Teachers: Challenge us, but pay attention to us as individuals!”
Group 4: Research Directors and Research Team Leaders: “We fly the flag for
academic freedom and individual choice. Students must take responsibility for their
own behaviour. We are not parents or babysitters!”
Group 5: Administrative Research Secretaries: “Teachers must make sure that the
students know the rules. It is what they do that counts! If the students know the rules,
they will be fine, and they will manage to find their way through the academic system.”
In reality, not all students, teachers, research directors and so on will have the
same views, but for the sake of keeping the task manageable, one group of stu-
dents was to adopt one academic role and one perspective. These roles were based
on a prior study exploring academics’ conceptions of their roles in promoting aca-
demic integrity in a supervisory context. The study utilised Q-methodology and
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 5 of 14
was carried out in two universities in different regions of the world (Löfström et
al., 2015). Q-methodology is a quali-quantological approach suitable for studying
complex phenomena about which different points of view can be expressed
(Brown, 1996). Instead of responding to a set of items, the participant scrutinizes
the items from a self-referential point of view and ranks the items in relation to
each other and based on what he or she believes to be true from his/her perspec-
tive. The outcome of the research is a set-up of items expressing different values
that are helpful in understanding how individuals position themselves on matters
in which values play a crucial role. Individuals may respond to items in the same
way, but for completely different reasons. Through the ranking process, the Q-
method affords a general overview of relevant viewpoints on the matter in question
(Watts & Stenner, 2005; Stenner et al. 2008). Designing the statements is a very
important step in the process, and these should represent a broad array of possible
views on the topic. For this purpose, a thorough literature review is necessary.
Participants rank the items in a grid providing a numeric value to each item
(based on the extent to which the participant agrees or disagrees with or feels
neutral about the item). The “sorts” are then analysed with a factor analytical
procedure, in which items are viewed as cases and participants as variables. The
notion of representative sampling, thus, applies to items in the Q set, not the
participants, as in conventional factor analysis (Stenner et al. 2008).
In the study, based on which the role-play profiles were created, participants
sorted 42 statements into a pre-determined grid with an 11-point scale from –5
to 0 to +5. The results suggested that academics in the two studied contexts may
be divided into five groups on the basis of qualitatively different views on
academic integrity, including (1) how best to teach academic integrity, (2) whose
responsibility it is to teach it, (3) what is the most appropriate source of moral
and ethical guidance, (4) the need for academic development of integrity, (5)
student collaboration versus collusion, and (6) the role of whistle-blowing. It
appeared that, despite well-developed integrity infrastructures and policies,
academics do not have consensus on some basic aspects of integrity. The diver-
sity of opinion is likely to have an impact on the efficacy of institutional
academic integrity policy implementation (Shephard et al., 2015). Therefore, the
five profiles were deemed suitable for a role-play to negotiate an institutional
academic integrity policy.
Along with their group profile, the groups received the following task description:
“At our university there have been some breaches in integrity recently. Many
colleagues have been concerned about the current state of affairs—Where is our
university headed? The Rector of the University calls a meeting in order to find out
what people at the university think about the situation.
“It is evident that the integrity policy of the university is not working and should be
revised. But how? There are two things we should focus on: 1) How to react to cases
of misconduct, and 2) How to proactively facilitate high levels of integrity so that
breaches are not repeated in the future. The first point means that we should think
about what would be the right procedure for dealing with misconduct. Who should
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 6 of 14
be responsible, and for what, in that process? The second point means that we must
focus on educating staff and students. We are particularly keen on developing
integrity and ethics education for our students as this is our pool of future scientists
and academics. But again, whose responsibility is it to teach integrity?
“In order to prepare for the Rector’s meeting, we ask you to think about these
questions in your group:
1. Whose job is it to teach integrity? What is the best way to teach integrity/How do
students learn about it? Can integrity be promoted in other ways in addition to
teaching it?
2. What kind of process for dealing with misconduct should be in place? What is the
purpose of this process? Why should there be a protocol and a process in place?”
The role-play included the following steps:
Day 1 (time: 3 h)
1. Division into groups and familiarization with the task.
2. Familiarisation with the descriptions of group perspectives and adoption of assigned
group perspective through discussion of how the group would react to a set of
specific questions given their adopted perspective.
3. Choosing spokespersons for the groups.
4. Choosing the group’s chair/rector and secretary
Day 2 (time: 3 h)
5. Revisiting the group perspective in groups and refreshing the views and arguments.
6. First panel discussion with the spokespersons explicating the groups’ policy
priorities, led by the rector and facilitated by the secretary.
7. Group work to revisit policy priorities.
8. Second panel discussion with the spokespersons explicating revised policy priorities.
9. “Temperature check” by the rector to establish the level of consensus.
10.Termination of exercise (Option: to continue until sufficient consensus on a mutual
policy is reached).
11.Debriefing, i.e. reflection on a) the process of negotiating a mutual policy, and b)
each participant’s learning experience, including perspective-taking as a method to
develop one’s understanding of academic integrity.
A key element of the role-play was staged as a panel discussion with representatives
from each group on the panel. The panel’s task was to give their group’s view on an in-
tegrity policy to the rector of the university and debate the views presented by others.
One student volunteered to act as rector and chair the role-play. Another student
volunteered to take the role of secretary at the rector’s office and be in charge of writ-
ing up a policy based on a panel discussion conveying the views of the five groups.
These two students did not participate in the group discussions at the beginning to
avoid bias towards a specific group. Instead, they familiarised themselves with the five
group profiles in order to be adequately prepared for their task. Each of the five groups
chose a spokesperson who would participate in the panel discussion in order to convey
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 7 of 14
the group’s position on academic integrity policy to the rector. For the student
who acted the part of the rector, it was important to listen to all groups of aca-
demics with the goal of establishing a policy statement to which everyone could
commit. Therefore, each group’s panel member was a spokesperson who had an
important role in conveying the group’s take on integrity, the handling of miscon-
duct and advancing integrity.
The morning of the last day of the summer school was dedicated to the panel discussion
and debate. The goal of the panel discussion was to hear out how each group positioned
itself with regard to academic integrity and come to a mutual agreement about a basic
policy description regarding the responsibilities for integrity and the handling of miscon-
duct. All groups had prepared arguments to support their views. The spokespersons on
the panel had prepared a short talk to present their group’s position. The discussion was
lively, and as expected, it became evident that achieving consensus was difficult.
During the panel discussion, the groups had the opportunity to support their spokesperson
or voice their opinions through interactive technology (Smartboards and iPads). The groups
assembled as the audience, but their role was not to observe the panel discussion passively.
Instead, the groups were equipped with iPads, and their comments, objections and approving
remarks were reflected in real-time on a white board. Through interactive technology every-
one had the opportunity to comment on the draft policy as it was being written up. A tech-
nical facilitator organised the messages according to the groups that presented them (with
the help of colour coding of the messages). Without the support of the technical facilitator it
may have been difficult for the spokespersons and the audience to quickly get an overview of
each group’s concerns. With the instant thematic sorting the spokespersons were able to
quickly pick up arguments from their group and they also used this opportunity.
The rector’s task was to coordinate the discussion and determine whether the policy
statement could be written to reflect the views of all groups. This was important in
order to facilitate all stakeholders’ commitment to the policy. The secretary recorded
key points from each spokesperson’s speech and drafted the policy.
After each of the panel spokespersons had heard one another’s perspectives, they dis-
cussed the draft. If the spokespersons hit a dead and not being able to agree on a draft
policy satisfactory to every group, the rector was instructed to send the spokespersons
back to their core groups to revisit their policy priorities and seek a solution for negoti-
ating further on the policy statement. Thus, the group was to decide which priorities
they could give up or compromise on and based on what arguments and which prior-
ities they would not be willing to compromise on.
The rector used this opportunity to send panellists back to their core groups. After a
brief group session the spokespersons returned to the panel to present their revised
solutions. The secretary edited the draft policy as the discussion unfolded. The edited
texts were projected on the white board for all to see and follow. When all spokesper-
sons had presented their solutions, there was another round of discussion led by the
rector, who then took a “temperature check” of the whole group, asking if the groups
felt that they were any closer to a statement that would satisfy all views.
At this point the course leader/facilitator had the option of continuing or ending the
exercise. In this case the role-play was terminated with four groups having reached
consensus on the academic integrity policy and one group dissatisfied with the out-
come, which they felt did not support their work.
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 8 of 14
The next step was a debriefing, the aim being to reflect on the process of negotiating
a mutual policy. The students were encouraged to compare their group view with their
own views and reflect on whether taking another perspective had influenced their un-
derstanding. The debriefing served the purpose of closure for the exercise despite the
fact that no definite solution was reached during the role-play itself. The debriefing also
provided an opportunity to discuss what can be learned through perspective-taking and
to reflect on the importance of being aware of priorities other than one’s own. The stu-
dents actively discussed their experience, and many of them voiced the differences be-
tween their own and role views indicating that taking on another perspective indeed
facilitated reflection.
The exercise lasted approximately 6 h spread over 2 days. It is possible to complete the
exercise in 1 day if required by the overall schedule, or alternatively allocate more time for
preparation or the panel activity. However, according to Wedig (2010), the best ratio for
preparing and carrying out a simulation is one to one. This ratio worked well in the
present role-play. Even if the time available was relatively short, by working in a succinct
and focused way the participants maintained interest and motivation; with only limited
time, they were strongly geared to search for a solution (cf. also Wedig, 2010). This helped
to keep up momentum and maintain focus.
Pedagogical underpinnings
The role-play took as its point of departure a realistic case (cf. also Gunnels et al.,
2015) of a university that is about to revise its academic integrity policy owing to recent
events prompting a scrutiny of policies and procedures. This scenario was contextua-
lised in a university setting, which, as a context, is familiar to doctoral students. Also
the sessions earlier in the week served the purpose of grounding integrity in the core
activities of academia, i.e. publishing, applying for financing and communicating
research to the wider society, for instance, through the media. The exercise was active
and student-led, facilitated perspective-taking, allowed for a variety of roles to be
adopted and applied interactive technology to facilitate engagement. The role-play
included whole group settings, a panel discussion and work in small teams. Using
teams adds a layer of internal negotiation to the exercise, which may facilitate the de-
velopment of students’ collaboration competences (Wedig, 2010). While individual
roles may create stronger accountability demands on individual students, team roles
are more viable in fairly large groups, such as the present one.
A debriefing/reflection session took place after the role-play. Students were
prompted to reflect on their own viewpoints relative to the perspective they had
adopted for the role-play. While the teacher/facilitator planned the role-play, the
exercise itself was student-led, that is, the facilitator gave up control over the
direction and outcome of the task, which is common for simulations that allow
students much space to develop their role and the outcomes in various directions
(cf. Wedig, 2010). The only restraint was the initial role description, which pro-
vided a starting point for negotiating the institutional policy. The groups, of
course, needed to stay true to the value basis in the description. Within those pa-
rameters, the space was open, and there was no particular outcome to be achieved,
as is often the case (for instance, in historical role-play).
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 9 of 14
The facilitator’s role is to “set the stage” for learning to take place. This requires careful
thought on the constructive alignment of intended learning outcomes, content and method,
as well as interaction between students (cf. Biggs 1999; Biggs & Tang, 2007). The view
underpinning the teaching was that of facilitation, with learning as agency. Once the ele-
ments of the learning process were planned, the facilitator handed over the task to the stu-
dents, who took responsibility for their learning. Giving up control of the situation may be
alien to teachers who are used to being in charge and in control of learning situations. How-
ever, student-driven exercises are effective in simulations (Wedig, 2010), and this idea was
applied in the current role-play. The role of the facilitator was to design a role-play that
would help achieve specific learning goals, to monitor the role-play during the process to
ensure that it unfolded constructively and to provide encouragement to the students (cf.
Wedig, 2010). The removal of the teacher’s leadership role together with dilemmas without
clearly solvable outcomes introduces dynamism into the exercise (Wright-Maley, 2015).
The summer school venue boasted an Engaging Learning Environment with inter-
active learning technologies, including Smartboards for group work and iPads for real-
time interaction. This technology has the advantage of engaging large groups and
provides a space for all to participate. This may be particularly helpful for individuals
who do not feel comfortable speaking up in a large group. It also allowed participants
to raise and make alternative viewpoints visible. The technology served the purpose of
the exercise well in demonstrating the multi-perspective nature of the topic (i.e. giving
visibility to alternative views) and helped to involve a majority of learners in active roles
(cf. also Wright-Maley, 2015).
Designing simulations or role-play is time consuming, and requires pilot-testing in
order to make sure that the exercise holds together in a classroom situation (Wedig,
2010). In this case, there was confidence in the basic idea of the five roles and their sus-
tainability in a classroom situation, as these roles were research-based. They had
emerged in a prior study on academics’ conceptions about academic integrity and their
roles and responsibilities in promoting it. The fact that these roles were empirically
underpinned was likely to boost the sense of realism in the role-play. In addition to
appropriate content, the orchestration of the exercise and the manner of providing a
suitable level of instruction are important. To test the appropriate level of instruction
and the overall functionality of the scheme, two role-playing pilot sessions were per-
formed with groups of approximately 20 participants who were academics involved in
university pedagogical training. In both pilot sessions the participants were collabora-
tive in taking on and engaging in the roles, which provided assurance that the concept
is sufficiently well developed. The pilot sessions also showed that it was difficult for
some participants to take on a role that was in conflict with their personally-held views.
Therefore, in the summer school substantially more time was reserved for the groups
to discuss and to get “inside” their role. While the role-play took approximately 6 h,
the pilot tests took about 2 h. Nevertheless, they were important for testing the overall
concept and instructions.
Transfer of learning
In role-play such as the one described here, it can be fully acceptable for the
groups not to reach agreement. Any kind of outcome may be possible, and indeed,
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 10 of 14
is acceptable. The outcome, which in this case was a draft policy document, is not
the only outcome of the role-play. Process outcomes (cf. Biggs & Tang, 2007) in-
cluded the adoption of an alternative perspective and engagement in negotiation. A
possible next step could be for students to compare the academic integrity policy
that they have created with the policy of their own institution, and analyse what
the challenges might be in implementing their actual institutional policy and how
that policy might be developed to increase the staff ’s and the students’ commit-
ment to it. Thus, a further learning outcome could be to get a deeper understand-
ing of the policies that guide academics in one’s own institution and to view own
practices and the practices of one’s research community against the institutional
policy with the aim to foster a culture of integrity.
The role-play triggered follow-up action: the summer school participants gener-
ated a fully student-led initiative on developing a doctoral students’ statement on
integrity, which was circulated among key stakeholders in the LERU community
approximately 2 months after the summer school. A group of students continued
working on the statement after the summer school, and social media was har-
nessed to allow all summer school participants to contribute with feedback and
ideas. This suggests that the role-play had raised the student’ awareness of their
opportunities to influence integrity matters in academia. A concern with all learn-
ing is its transferability, i.e. its application to novel or different contexts. One prob-
lem is often that the knowledge gained does not automatically transfer to another
context. The students’ initiative in devising a doctoral student statement suggests
that a transfer took place from the course context to the students’ real institutional
contexts. Furthermore, similar to other researchers (i.e. Gunnels et al., 2015; Mc-
Carthy & Anderson, 2000), this activity suggests that there is applicability of the
exercise irrespective of the students’ disciplinary background. However, the partici-
pants in the role-play were doctoral students, and thus represented an advanced
group of individuals. It is perhaps for that reason that the participants were able to
utilise what they learned in a subsequent extra-curricular activity. They also had
sufficient experience in academia to have been exposed to some of the roles of
professors, institutional review board members and administrators. The activity
may not work equally well with students who have less exposure to various
academic roles.
Feedback1 was collected to provide an indication of how the participants experienced
the summer school with its different exercises and what kind of investment they made
during it in their own learning. The participants rated their overall satisfaction with the
summer school as 4 (on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 = very unsatisfied, 5 = very satis-
fied). They also rated their own engagement with the topic of the summer school and
the learning activities as 4 (on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 = no active engagement, 5 =
very active engagement). While the summer school hosted a variety of activities, the
role-play was among those providing the most opportunity for active participation, and
the participants appear to have taken advantage of this task. As one of the participants
expressed it in the open feedback, “exercises where you look at things from different
perspectives were very useful. They make you question you assumptions!” Students
suggested that the role-play might have been better placed at the beginning of the
summer school in order to promote the participants’ learning processes and lead
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 11 of 14
to a concrete outcome within the summer school time frame. However, when
placed at the middle (the preparation) and end (the panel) of the program, the par-
ticipants were able to utilise content from the summer school sessions to inform
their group profile.
Summer school objectives 2, 3 and 5 were achieved well. The role-play was intended
to support awareness of and interest in ethical/integrity questions by creating a stimu-
lating cross-disciplinary environment (mean 3.7 on a scale from 1 to 5 where 1 = very
poorly achieved, 5 = very well achieved), support appreciation for ethically sustainable
solutions (mean 3.8), and to promote the development of such qualities and compe-
tences that prepare students to function as future ethical leaders in their research com-
munities (mean 3.6). The fourth goal related to developing tools for recognising,
analysing and solving ethical/integrity dilemmas was reached to a lesser extent (mean
3.1). While observations spoke for the transference of competences (e.g. the student-led
initiative developing a doctoral students’ statement on integrity) further discussion
might have been beneficial in helping participants to conceptualise the “tools” that they
were already applying.
ConclusionThis article described a role-play on academic integrity, in which doctoral students ne-
gotiated the revision of an institutional integrity policy taking on different stakeholder
roles. The role-play activity utilised researched perspectives in an attempt to facilitate
perspective-taking and broadening views of some of the complexities involved in creat-
ing a culture of integrity. A role-play, such as this one, serves the purpose of raising
awareness of various policies guiding responsible conduct in research (i.e. international,
national and institutional policies), which is an important step towards increasing com-
mitment to high ethical standards. The article suggests a model for applying role-play
to teach academic integrity in doctoral education. The added value is that it describes
the design and implementation of a research-based exercise in which the roles were
based on a prior study exploring academics’ conceptions of their responsibilities in pro-
moting academic integrity. In order to establish evidence for the utility of role-plays as
teaching method, empirical research, for instance with an experimental design, will be
necessary.
Endnotes1Thirty-eight participants provided anonymous feedback. They were asked to tick a
box if they allowed their feedback to be used for research and reporting purposes. All
participants consented. Such a study would not require ethics review in Finland as it
did not involve intervention in the physical integrity of research participants; deviate
from the principle of informed consent, involve participants under the age of 15 being
studied without parental consent; expose participants to exceptionally strong stimuli;
cause long-term mental harm beyond the risks encountered in normal life; or signify a
security risk to subjects (Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity 2009).
AcknowledgementsThe work is part of the project “Teaching and Learning Academic Integrity in the Social Sciences: A universitypedagogical approach”, which is supported by the Academy of Finland under Grant 252813 to the author.The author would like to thank Elisa Huotari, the anonymous reviewers and the editor for their valuablecomments on an earlier draft.
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 12 of 14
Competing interestThe author declares that she has no competing interests..
Received: 26 August 2016 Accepted: 15 November 2016
ReferencesBernardi RA, Lecca CL, Murphy JC, Sturgis EM (2011) Does education influence ethical decisions? J Acad Ethics 9(3):
235–256Biggs J (1999) What the student does: Teaching for enhanced learning. High Educ Res Dev 18(1):57–75Biggs J, Tang K (2007) Teaching for quality learning at university, 3rd edn. Society for Research into Higher Education &
Open University, MaidenheadBraunschweiger P, Goodman KW (2007) The CITI program: An international online resource for education in human
subjects protection and the responsible conduct of research. Acad Med 82(9):861–864Brown SR (1996) Q methodology and qualitative research. Qual Health Res 6(4):561–567Canary HE (2007) Teaching ethics in communication courses: An investigation of instructional methods, course foci,
and student outcomes. Commun Educ 56(2):193–208Chapman KJ, Davis R, Toy D, Wright L (2004) Academic integrity in the business school environment: I’ll get by with a
little help from my friend. J Marketing Educ 26(3):236–249Clarkeburn H, Downie JR, Matthew B (2002) Impact of an ethics programme in a life sciences curriculum. Teach High
Educ 7(1):65–79Druckman D, Ebner N (2008) Onstage or behind the scenes? Relative learning benefits of simulation role-play and
design. Simulat Gaming 39(4):465–497Emmerton L, Jiang H, McKauge L (2014) Pharmacy students’ interpretation of academic integrity. Am J Pharm Educ
78(6):119Finnish Advisory Board on Research Integrity (2009). Ethical principles of research in the humanities and social and
behavioural sciences and proposals for ethical review. Helsinki. Retrieved from http://www.tenk.fi/sites/tenk.fi/files/ethicalprinciples.pdf Oct 29, 2016.
Frederking B (2005) Simulations and student learning. J Polit Sci Educ 1(3):385–393Gropelli TM (2010) Using active simulation to enhance learning of nursing ethics. J Contin Educ Nurs 41(3):104–105Gunnels CW IV, Bovard BD, Buzasi D, Cassani MK, Douglass J, Everham EM III, Hartley A, Herman J, Mujtaba M, Muller J,
Nelson K, Nicolas A, Southard L, Thomas S, Demers NE (2015) Engaging students in ethical considerations of thescientific process using a simulated funding panel. CURQ 26(1):12–18
Gynnild V, Gotschalk P (2008) Promoting academic integrity at a Midwestern University: Critical review and currentchallenges. IJEI 4(2):41–59
Heitman E, Olsen C, Anestidou L, Bulger RE (2007) New graduate students’ baseline knowledge of the responsibleconduct of research. Acad Med 82(9):838–845
Ison D (2012) Plagiarism among dissertations: Prevalence at online institutions. J Acad Ethics 10(3):227–236Jordan SR (2013) Conceptual clarification and the task of improving research on academic ethics. J Acad Ethics
11:243–256Karkowski AM (2010) Activities to help students appreciate committees that protect research participants. CURQ 30(3):11–14Kember D, Kwan KP (2000) Lecturers’ approaches to teaching and their relationship to conceptions of good teaching.
Instr Sci 28(5):469–490Kraus R (2008) You must participate. Violating research ethical principles through role-play. College Teach 56(3):131–136Kremmer ML, Brimble M, Stevenson-Clarke P (2007) Investigating the probability of student cheating: The relevance of
student characteristics, assessment items, perceptions of prevalence and history of engagement. IJEI 3(2):3–17Lloyd P, Van de Poel I (2008) Designing games to teach ethics. Sci Eng Ethics 14(3):433–447Löfström E, Trotman T, Furnari M, Shephard K (2015) Who teaches academic integrity and how do they do it? High
Educ 69(3):435–448Martin E, Prosser M, Trigwell K, Ramsden P, Benjamin J (2000) What university teachers teach and how they teach it.
Instr Sci 28:387–412McCarthy JP, Anderson L (2000) Active learning techniques versus traditional teaching styles: two experiments from
history and political science. Innovat High Educ 24(4):279–294McWilliams V, Nahavandi A (2006) Using live cases to teach ethics. J Bus Ethics 67(4):421–433Nadolny L, Woolfrey J, Pierlott M, Kahn S (2013) SciEthics Interactive: science and ethics learning in a virtual
environment. Etr&D-Educ Tech Res 61(6):979–999Nelson J, Smith LB, Hunt CS (2014) The migration toward ethical decision making as a core course into the b-school:
instructional strategies and approaches for consideration. J Educ Bus 89(1):49–56Nonis S, Swift CO (2001) An examination of the relationship between academic dishonesty and workplace dishonesty:
a multicampus investigation. J Educ Bus 77(2):69–77O’Leary C, Cotter D (2000) The ethics of final year accountancy students: an international comparison. Manag Audit J
15(3):108–115Rosnow RL (1990) Teaching research ethics through role-play and discussion. Teach Psychol 17:179–181Shapira-Lishchinsky O (2013) Team-based simulations: learning ethical conduct in teacher trainee programs. Teach
Teach Educ 33:1–12Shaw CM (2004) Using role-play scenarios in the IR classroom: An examination of exercises on peacekeeping
operations and foreign policy decision making. ISP 5(1):1–22Shephard K, Trotman T, Furnari M, Löfström E (2015). Teaching research integrity in higher education: policy and
strategy. J High Educ Policy Manag DOI: 10.1080/1360080X.2015.1102823Stenner P, Watts S, Worrell M (2008) Q Methodology. In: Willig C, Rogers WS (eds) Sage handbook of qualitative
research methods in psychology. Sage, London, pp 215–239
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 13 of 14
Strohmetz DB, Skleder AA (1992) The use of role-play in teaching research ethics: a validation study. Teach Psychol19(2):106–108
Sweet S (1999) Using a mock institutional review board to teach ethics in sociological research. Teach Sociol27(1):55–59
Tolley H (1998) Project THRO: Teaching human rights on-line. Hum Rights Quart 20(4):945–961Tryon GS (2000) Ethical transgressions of school psychology graduate students: a critical incidents survey. Ethics Behav
10(3):271–279Wareham DG, Elefsiniotis PT, Elms DG (2006) Introducing ethics using structured controversies. Eur J Eng Ethics 31(6):
651–660Watts S, Stenner P (2005) Doing Q methodology: Theory, method and interpretation. Qual Res Psychol 2:67–91Wedig T (2010) Getting the most from classroom simulations: strategies for maximizing learning outcomes. Ps-Polit Sci
Polit 43(3):547–555Wheeler SM (2006) Role-playing games and simulations for international issues courses. J Polit Sci Educ 2(3):331–347Wright-Maley C (2015) Beyond the “Babel problem”: defining simulations for the social studies. JSSR 39(2):63–77
Submit your manuscript to a journal and benefi t from:
7 Convenient online submission
7 Rigorous peer review
7 Immediate publication on acceptance
7 Open access: articles freely available online
7 High visibility within the fi eld
7 Retaining the copyright to your article
Submit your next manuscript at 7 springeropen.com
Löfström International Journal for Educational Integrity (2016) 12:5 Page 14 of 14
top related